The proposal -- unlike past efforts like the failed SOPA -- does not involve the government. And it does not involve internet "capital punishment" -- termination of paying customers. But if customers are found pirating by MarkMonitor -- the group contracted by the Center for Copyright Information (CCI) to filter ISP traffic looking for P2P streams with infringed IP -- ISPs will be liable to either slow users connections or force them to take "classes" to regain access to the connection.

The move is a win for ISPs; they'll likely be able to provide a lesser degree of service to many of their customers while claiming it's in the noble name of "intellectual property protection". Reduced service means less bandwidth and data consumed, which in turn means cost savings, which in turn means more profit.

And big media is clinging to the notion that if it can just get some habitual pirates to abandon their foul ways, they'll instead turn to legally buying all sorts of content, triggering a golden age of media profits.

Of course there's little signs of that being the case -- pirates actually tend to already be the biggest buyers of legal content, so it seems relatively unlikely they'll buy more if forced to forgo their pirating.

Piracy warnings might sound good on paper, but a major issue is how to track the true offenders and who should be forced to pay for that tracking.

What's more, Mr. Peckham poses an intriguing scenario of why the current IPv4 based plan in simply too dumb to work. He comments:

My condo complex (I'm an owner) has 48 units. It was built in 2003, so it's relatively new. At the time, the builders had the foresight to wire each unit with Ethernet — a drop in each room, everything connected back to aggregate wire closets. Near my front door (and all the front doors of all the units) is a mini-wire closet with a switch/hub that connects my unit to a central switch/hub in a locked room on the property.

That, in turn, plugs into a high-speed cable modem — a cable modem that's shared across all 48 units. We're technically shielded from each other using a special box that "firewalls" each private IP and can control how much bandwidth it's allocated, etc. Whether we elect to use it or pay for our own service instead, all 48 units have access to this shared Internet.

He argues that for business owners or owners of residential units (like himself), the plan will create a nightmarish scenario of new costs and enforcement responsibilities, in which ultimately the innocent may suffer along with the guilty. He writes:

You can probably see where I'm headed. With "six strikes," any of the residents in the complex who — knowingly or unknowingly — engage in an act of copyright violation, could incur an alert. Who's going to see that alert? Probably me, as the technical contact for the ISP (that or our property management company, at which point it'll route back to me).

At this point I'm not sure what happens. The IP address MarkMonitor's software is going to see, presumably, is our public one, not the private address of the device that's been singled out on our condo complex's network. How do we identify the perpetrator? Should we identify the perpetrator? If our ISP says we're in violation, is it incumbent on us to run our own tracking software, somehow, to identify the person(s) involved? Are we supposed to somehow issue these warnings ourselves, since the ISP won't technically be able to?

See the problem? Who's responsible for each infraction? Who should be punished? The entire complex, by throttling or at some point terminating our Internet service? Each unit in the complex pays for shared Internet equally as part of our monthly association fees. We're not a business — there's no CEO. The few of us who manage the Internet on behalf of the rest can't act unilaterally to preempt potential infractions by blocking aspects of the service by introducing content filters the way a private company might.

He also takes the ISP/media union to task for failing to transparently disclose full details of the plan and how it will work. He says the collaborators decision to force consumers to "reverse-engineer" their rights is a big "transparency issue".

The plan, as he points out, has been temporarily delayed by the CCI as the power outages from Hurricane Sandy set back the MarkMonitor's testing of the scheme on trial partner networks.

But as the delayed system moves forward to rolling out in weeks to come, one has to wonder how many scenarios like the one Mr. Peckham laid out might occur. If they do, the wrath will likely largely be shouldered by the ISP, and they may find themselves losing paying customers.

And when things reach that point one has to wonder whether the fragile union between the content hording big media and the service providers will be capable of surviving the financial friction.

It seems to me a lot of people who pirate don't have much money, so how will stopping piracacy trigger a golden age of media profits? Its not like the would be pirates will then spend thousands of dollars building a movie collection.

It's not piracy itself that media companies fear, that's just the excuse they use to shut down file sharing networks. The real fear is that these networks will eventually grow enough to provide independent artists exposure and a way to distribute their work without the need to sign contracts with media companies. In another generation if left unchecked, this could make record companies obsolete.

This is the same trend for all companies since the invention of the corporation. Companies would rather fight to remain status-quo, rather than re-invent themselves. Adapt or Die. There's a reason I shop almost exclusively at Amazon or Ebay these days--and it's because these sites are like a digital flea-market. There is much more selection and varity than any "conventional" big-box department store.

Music/movies are no different. "Conventional" outlets (chain cinemas, big-box retailers) provide limited varity. RIAA/MPAA is essentially a "big-box" retailer. They are fighting to remain relevant--even in the face obscurity via unwillingness to change.

I could also make correlaries about fruit computers fighting for relevance via litigation (which isn't far removed from the RIAA/MPAA fighting via legislation).

It should be fairly obvious that capitalism works best by focusing on what is best for the consumer. Legislation which limits selection, stifles innovation, or grants de-facto monopolies (ISPs, RIAA, etc), is bad ju-ju. Only by protecting consumer CHOICE, can the market truly follow consumer trends.

a lot of those backers are from a forum which support iso demoing games. a lot of them have/play hundreds of pirated games. still, they trowed $ for this man and his dream. he asked for 2 milion, he got 7.

Last time i checked this has already happened. I've already spent a month watching all the who's line episodes on youtube. The TV hasen't been on since juli other then when my dad comes around, most new content i get is from youtube channels.

I find it sad everytime i watch a TV show on youtube or another website that i'm not watching it on the producer's own website. Apearantly, it's still not profitable enough for them to host the content themselves, put 3 or 4 15 second ads in there, and get the money they aren't getting now. They do realise that everytime i go and watch a episode of the walking dead i'm clicking through 4-5 ad screens before i even get to the damn movie?

Beats having to wait 3 years for a show that might not even be bought by the TV stations in my country, which will only air 1 season per year then repeat it ad nauseam with 3 10 minute commercial blocks in it.

As far as i'm concirned it's a good shift, left them suffer as long as they don't wise up. The new business models that will arise from this will be better for both consumers and for the companies.

Just look at free to play games. Now we have games like league of legends, world of tanks, planetside 2, games that do the free to play model proper. When piracy was still a small issue and games sold traditionally, the only "free to play" games where only based around selling power, and because of it avoided as the plague by any self respecting gamer.

From that culture combined with piracy came the progression based free to play games. Players got games they could play for free and officially, while developers get more money they would otherwise, as it's a continual income system rather then a sell and forget system. A win-win. Because of it it's been a looooong while since i pirated a game, while i used to download atleast 50gb's worth of games a month just a couple of years ago.

Same could happen with TV shows. Put them up on your own website, run 15 second ads per 15 minutes of show MAX, and throw up a pay wall with subscribers getting everything a week (basically a episode ahead) of everybody else, but everybody else does get it for free after a week. No need to go through 3rd parties so all the profits go to the producer, while those who cannot afford to get free content, while those who pay still have exclusivity. A win-win-win situation.

The only reason it hasn't happened yet is because not enough people pirate yet. They can still drain too much money from our pockets in the traditional manners.

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer